Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
City of Charlotte v. Rousso
Citations: 346 S.E.2d 693; 82 N.C. App. 588; 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2522Docket: 8626SC160
Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina; August 19, 1986; North Carolina; State Appellate Court
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina upheld the City of Charlotte's order to condemn a lot owned by Albert S. Rousso and Doris H. Rousso, as well as Brownlee Jewelers, Inc., for the purpose of establishing a public park. The defendants raised three main arguments against the validity of the order, all of which were rejected by the court. 1. **Res Judicata**: The defendants claimed the current suit was barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal of a similar condemnation action. However, the court determined that the facts in the current case differed from those in the earlier case, which involved plans for leasing the land for commercial purposes, not for a public park. The City had rescinded its earlier resolution and adopted a new one that complied with legal requirements. Thus, the prior judgment only barred condemnation for commercial purposes, not for a public park, which is legally permissible. 2. **Public Purpose**: The defendants contended that the court's finding of a public purpose for the condemnation was erroneous because the City had not yet adopted a specific design for the park. The court dismissed this argument, stating that no law requires a city to finalize a design before acquiring land for a public facility. The statutes governing eminent domain clearly support the City's authority to condemn land for public parks. 3. **Arbitrary and Capricious Action**: The defendants argued that the City acted arbitrarily by refusing to accept their settlement offer, which involved excluding their land from the park and allowing them to maintain it as a historical site. The court found that the City has broad discretion in such matters and noted that there was no evidence of abuse of discretion in the City’s decision to pursue its own plan. The court affirmed the order, with judges Whichard and Martin concurring.